clubs are worthless

[Joy]

Okay, maybe they're not totally worthless, but in trying to type a person, yourself especially, it's not wise to consider them too seriously. They're too easily misconstrued, and there are too many factors that could make one appear or identify with another "club".

The perfect example would be highly intelligent geeks. What highly intelligent geek isn't going to relate to the NT club? And what highly intelligent person isn't at least a little geeky and different from most of the people around them?

Determining one's quadra values (Te, Ti, Se, Si, etc.) will get you far, far closer to determining their type than this club bullshit. In the very least, club should not be determined until quadra and is already firmly established and only if temperament isn't clear (perhaps to decide between activity partners or dual halves, for example).

The bottom line is that if your Quadra values are not clear, then you should focus on figuring out that BEFORE giving temperament, club, or any of the dichotomies serious consideration.

[Expat]

I agree. Regarding the wiki, we included Clubs because they are part of classical socionics, as per Augusta, Gulenko, and others. But for typing, quadras must take priority.

[Ezra]

I agree too.

Club, temperament, dichotomies and descriptions are good for confirmation of type, but not as justification in themselves.

[Phaedrus]

I agree. Regarding the wiki, we included Clubs because they are part of classical socionics, as per Augusta, Gulenko, and others. But for typing, quadras must take priority.

No, definitely not. The Clubs are much more reliable for typing purposes than the Quadras. But, as always, everything must fit the assumed type.

[Ezra]

I agree. Regarding the wiki, we included Clubs because they are part of classical socionics, as per Augusta, Gulenko, and others. But for typing, quadras must take priority.

No, definitely not. The Clubs are much more reliable for typing purposes than the Quadras. But, as always, everything must fit the assumed type.

That coming from a guy who believes that there is no alternative to MBTI type equalling socionics type.

[Jarno]

clubs and quadra's are the last one on my list to use. but it's probably all a personal preference.

[Joy]

I agree. Regarding the wiki, we included Clubs because they are part of classical socionics, as per Augusta, Gulenko, and others. But for typing, quadras must take priority.

No, definitely not. The Clubs are much more reliable for typing purposes than the Quadras. But, as always, everything must fit the assumed type.

That coming from a guy who believes that there is no alternative to MBTI type equalling socionics type.

Yeah, it's just another example of how people believe what they want to believe. Phaedrus may very well be the best example of this I've ever seen, second only to religious fanatics.

[UDP]

4-1

[Joy]

What are you talking about?

[Ezra]

He's talking about you, Expat, he and me being four people against Phaedrus' one in this argument, and, if I'm not mistaken, he completely disregarded Jarno's comment as not even being worthy of being part of any argument.

[Expat]

I disagree with Joy's first post a bit regarding the temperament. If you meet persons "live", sometimes the temperament is very clear, more so than the quadras. For instancve, when we met electric in London, it was very clear that he was an IP and a low-Fe type, so SLI or ILI, but whether he was Gamma or Delta wasn't that clear and it would require deeper acquaintance.

Now, if you are typing yourself, though, then you should be able to spot the correct quadra values.

[Ezra]

I can dig that.

[Joy]

I disagree with Joy's first post a bit regarding the temperament. If you meet persons "live", sometimes the temperament is very clear, more so than the quadras. For instancve, when we met electric in London, it was very clear that he was an IP and a low-Fe type, so SLI or ILI, but whether he was Gamma or Delta wasn't that clear and it would require deeper acquaintance.

Now, if you are typing yourself, though, then you should be able to spot the correct quadra values.

I was posting mainly about self-typing. I think temperaments are more obvious in some people than others, but even in the most obvious cases, one shouldn't think, "Okay, I know I'm IP, so which of the IP types fits me best?" and start considering which club they belong to. They should think, "Do I value Se/Ni or Si/Ne? Do I value Fe/Ti or Fi/Te?" and then after deciding on those two things, think, "Okay, so I'm clearly Delta... and it seems apparent that I'm IP, so I should see if SLI/IEE duality makes the most sense for me... " and go on to confirm that they are indeed SLI.

[Birds]

You mean like NTs, NFs, SFs and STs? I do think that they are helpful. And it doesn't have to be as simple as NTs = nerds, NFs = saints, etc.

And I do think that temperaments are infinitely helpful... you can't go any more wrong than typing them by their dominant or role function.

[Joy]

It's all about quadra values. Determine quadra first, then look at the rest of that stuff.

[FDG]

I think better "clubs" are those that share a function, like

INTP ENTJ ISTP ESTJ

ISFJ ESFP ESTP ISTJ

I see them forming quite easily, provided that the subtypes are right.

[Phaedrus]

It's all about quadra values. Determine quadra first, then look at the rest of that stuff.

Do the exact opposite of that, and you are more likely to be successful. The quadras do more harm than good when people make them their starting point in the typing process.

I think better "clubs" are those that share a function, like

INTP ENTJ ISTP ESTJ

ISFJ ESFP ESTP ISTJ

I see them forming quite easily, provided that the subtypes are right.

That's another possible grouping that can rather easily be seen too, if we know what we are looking for. We can form a lot of different type groups depending on what we focus on. My point is that people are less likely to go astray if they focus on the classical clubs (or even Keirsey's temperament groups) than when they focus on the quadras. The quadras are responsible for a lot of typing mistakes.

[Ezra]

They should think, "Do I value Se/Ni or Si/Ne? Do I value Fe/Ti or Fi/Te?"

This can be much tougher than one might think, Joy. For example, someone may believe they value Ne more than Ni, but Se more than Si.

The quadras do more harm than good when people make them their starting point in the typing process.

In what way?

[FDG]

It's all about quadra values. Determine quadra first, then look at the rest of that stuff.

Do the exact opposite of that, and you are more likely to be successful. The quadras do more harm than good when people make them their starting point in the typing process.

I think better "clubs" are those that share a function, like

INTP ENTJ ISTP ESTJ

ISFJ ESFP ESTP ISTJ

I see them forming quite easily, provided that the subtypes are right.

That's another possible grouping that can rather easily be seen too, if we know what we are looking for. We can form a lot of different type groups depending on what we focus on. My point is that people are less likely to go astray if they focus on the classical clubs (or even Keirsey's temperament groups) than when they focus on the quadras. The quadras are responsible for a lot of typing mistakes.

I agree. Personal personality preferences (or, if you wish, obfuscatory traits) are generally just as strong as quadra values, and thus it is very easy to mix the two.

[Smilingeyes]

The ST club is the basic property of socionics: External.
The NF club is the basic property of socionics: Internal.
The NT and SF clubs are defined by the two ways in which External and Internal balance.

Clubs are one of the most basic ways to see the socionics.

Functions themselves are a derivation of these basic properties in the first level. (a combination of the basic properties)

Types are a derivation in the second level (a combination of functions)

Quadras are an artificially created four type grouping and their basic property is their mutual supportiveness which while commonly seen, does not in fact always work. Quadras are roughly on the third level of Ti combining things from the basic properties. Clubs (or at least two of them depending on how one wishes to see things) are themselves one of the basic properties.

Now as to quadra VALUES. . . If you suppose that quadra VALUES are an important part of the typing process...

If you believe that quadra values have at most a statistical linkage to the actual functions and deeper processes... Your basing all your typings on stuff you believe is weak evidence.
If you believe that quadra values have a definite and determinative linkage to the inner functions you are claiming that not only does our thought structure determine how we think but it determines the content of our thoughts as well.

FURTHERMORE if you then ALSO happen to think that type doesn't change during life you are claiming that people have 4 possible inborn value systems that do not change during lifetime. And then you're in deep trouble. I dare anyone to support that claim.

I make no comment on what I think is the proper way to use quadras.

If you happen to think mathematically of course none of the groups are more basic than any other.
The groups INTp-ENTp-ISTj-ESTj, INTj-ENTj-ISTp-ESTp, ESFj-INFp-ISFj-ENFp, ESFp-INFj-ISFp-ENFj... of course have their own defining characteristics. If a person happens to train themselves to focus on and spot the particular characteristics of these groups, these groups are the most important to that person and s/he may freely laugh at anyone who uses quadras or temperaments because s/he lacks the ability to use those groupings well. So I guess there are some people for whom quadras are the most important group and some for whom they aren't.

Now ... let's try another thing... Does anyone here have a definition for what each quadra is? And I do mean a definition, not a description. And if your definition happens to be gamma = se + fi + te + ni, please prove that that's a better group than foobar = te + fi + ni + ne. And if the definition is merry/serious+resolute/judicious, please explain why that's better than obstinate/compliant + careful/care-free.

The basic supposition of this thread causes... problems.

The reason quadras were chosen was the Ti-based assertion that they have the best ability to cooperate long-term or something like that. Now I've tested this many many times and firstly... if one tries this with a person of the wrong sub-type, there's trouble. So the quadra isn't really that hot in its theoretical best property in the first place.
Secondly... and this one goes only if you happen to believe that type changes... long-term advantage can't be counted on because there's no knowing whether the person is going to use the exact same amount of the same functions in the future as they do now, so quadras don't work for that reason either...
Thirdly, the quadras aren't even theoretically best groupings for short term coworking. Clubs are. So if you just happen to be interested in short term cooperation you should look for that instead.
Frankly... quadras have a lot of problems.

And the reason quadras are known so well is that they've just been researched so much. And the reason is that they were theoretically interesting according to a couple of people who weren't afraid to do some legwork. And that's the reason people are now so gung ho about quadras.

Now at this point of writing I note that some people are using quadra values to mean = valued functions. Now that's entirely a different thing and basically 'quadra values' should NOT be used to refer to that. But that's a different argument. And try to make that work with the fact that currently, for the moment, I in my personal life value most the functions: Se, Si, Te and Fi. So what's my quadra? (It's delta, but if you type me based on valued functions, you're in trouble.)
I also note that a lot of what I say here's already been said. Good.

[Joy]

WOW THAT'S SO COOL AND MAKES SO MUCH SENSE

(real post to follow at some point)

[Ezra]

WOW THAT'S SO COOL AND MAKES SO MUCH SENSE

(real post to follow at some point)

I doubt it. Ti types would only go for that if it fitted in with their own beliefs instead of looking at verifiable facts.

[Joy]

Verifiable facts?

First of all, what does that have to do with Smilingeye's post (we're all just talking about theory here, after all). Secondly, what does that have to do with Te/Fi > Ti/Fe? I'd say it has more to do with sensing vs. intuitive (as much as I hate to break it down that way) than Ti/Fe vs. Te/Fi.

[Ezra]

Verifiable facts?

First of all, what does that have to do with Smilingeye's post (we're all just talking about theory here, after all).

Tis don't care for facts - they want that which fits in with their system. It's obvious, Joy.

Secondly, what does that have to do with Te/Fi > Ti/Fe? I'd say it has more to do with sensing vs. intuitive (as much as I hate to break it down that way) than Ti/Fe vs. Te/Fi.

Then why did you mention Ti/Fe?

[Joy]

Verifiable facts?

First of all, what does that have to do with Smilingeye's post (we're all just talking about theory here, after all).

Tis don't care for facts - they want that which fits in with their system. It's obvious, Joy.

Again, what does that have to do with Smilingeye's post?

Secondly, what does that have to do with Te/Fi > Ti/Fe? I'd say it has more to do with sensing vs. intuitive (as much as I hate to break it down that way) than Ti/Fe vs. Te/Fi.

Then why did you mention Ti/Fe?

Ti/Fe and Te/Fi were already the topic of conversation. I was asking what verifiable facts have to do with that topic of conversation.

[Joy]

Ti types DO care about "facts", btw. Probably more so than Te types. They fit information into their systems, and then that information becomes a "fact" to them until they have a good reason (that is, one that fits into their system, which again is just how they perceive and think about reality) to doubt it.

[Smilingeyes]

Ti types DO care about "facts", btw. Probably more so than Te types. They fit information into their systems, and then that information becomes a "fact" to them until they have a good reason (that is, one that fits into their system, which again is just how they perceive and think about reality) to doubt it.

I get what you mean but strictly speaking this is untrue. INTj cares more about "facts" than ENTj, but ESTj cares more about "facts" than ISTj. The phenomenon Joy means here is real enough though, and very important. (I take it that you mean the point that static facts are universally important whereas dynamic facts are fleeting and so less important. If not, please correct me.)

[MysticSonic]

"Ti types DO care about "facts", btw. Probably more so than Te types. They fit information into their systems, and then that information becomes a "fact" to them until they have a good reason (that is, one that fits into their system, which again is just how they perceive and think about reality) to doubt it."

Yessssssssssssssssss.

[Joy]

and say Smilingeyes post was a piece of personal opinion masquerading as objectivity.

No. The information in his post was not ethical, it was logical. You're right that it was a personal opinion masquerading as objectivity though.

Are you certain you're not Delta hkkmr?

[Ezra]

Verifiable facts?

First of all, what does that have to do with Smilingeye's post (we're all just talking about theory here, after all).

Tis don't care for facts - they want that which fits in with their system. It's obvious, Joy.

Again, what does that have to do with Smilingeye's post?

Secondly, what does that have to do with Te/Fi > Ti/Fe? I'd say it has more to do with sensing vs. intuitive (as much as I hate to break it down that way) than Ti/Fe vs. Te/Fi.

Then why did you mention Ti/Fe?

Ti/Fe and Te/Fi were already the topic of conversation. I was asking what verifiable facts have to do with that topic of conversation.

Joy, your post was in response to Smilingeyes'. Mine was in response to yours.

[Smilingeyes]

and say Smilingeyes post was a piece of personal opinion masquerading as objectivity.
The whole Ego/Super-Id quadra preference and it's effect on relationships is based on empirical evidence. Model A is a theory for this organization of information elements. Intertype relationships are a manifestation of the variation of relationships.

Can you say this more clearly, please?

So you "say" you value, Se, Si, Te and Fi, are we to believe your personal opinion on this?

Lol. Now whose opinion do you think would be most reliable when you're asking what I value?

could be your 8th or dual seeking function. I can say I value Te too, I value Fi as well but is it meaningful to information metabolism?

Exactly!

What type were you before? ENTj? Maybe your type didn't change at all, and it's still that's driving this need to believe in type change or your personal type change.

[/quote]

Yes, I was ENTj.
Now the reason I value Se more than Ne is that I have a lot of experience from my previous years on how to use the Se of other people to my advantage. I remember the good sides of Se all too well. I also remember a lot of bad experiences of Ne, so I don't value that. The reasons why I don't value Ne at the moment are trivial, not systematic. I have no doubt that I should and will value Ne more than Se the more and more I get experience from using Si, but I don't on an emotional and on the level of valuing it, understand how Ne supports me. I need to see it in action. It is only experience that causes us to value our dual functions. So if you type me according to my memory, I'm gamma. If you type me according to my current feelings and aspirations and desires, I'm delta. If it happens to mess with somebody's understanding of socionics, I really don't care. I'd like to point out that whatever way you classify me, it doesn't change me, it changes you and your understanding of things. ...

This applies to all of my trivial habits btw. I lack a lot of information on how increased use of Si affects my daily life and what kind of habits I need to assume. Already my style of clothing and my hairstyle has changed. Some of my hobbies and even the way I walk have changed within the past year and a half. I've almost stopped reading newspapers. I drive in a more agile but a more erratic way. I treat people differently, more headstrong. I tell people "No" without trying to explain it or to make them like me. I received a lot of money and I did not decide to invest it into stock. Instead it's just lying around in my account. And most of this stuff has just come naturally, with me just later noticing that for some reason, I'm not the man I used to be. One of the things I'll probably be losing soon, is this openness. It doesn't serve me anymore the way it used to. Hmm... Sorry for threadjacking.

[Smilingeyes]

and say Smilingeyes post was a piece of personal opinion masquerading as objectivity.

No. The information in his post was not ethical, it was logical. You're right that it was a personal opinion masquerading as objectivity though.

Well, in the sense that all information described by everyone is subjective, sure.

Also if you mean my interpretation of facts in there, sure. Very individual. If you mean the facts that I mentioned ... *shrug* they're true in the sense that they correspond to historical events and the general way of showing information and the best I can give. I don't really have a personal agenda on whether people use quadras or clubs or whatever so I didn't for example twist facts to support a personal agenda or use other trickery generally associated with inobjectivity. ... but on the other hand, truth is a fragile concept at best.

[Joy]

Ti types DO care about "facts", btw. Probably more so than Te types. They fit information into their systems, and then that information becomes a "fact" to them until they have a good reason (that is, one that fits into their system, which again is just how they perceive and think about reality) to doubt it.

I get what you mean but strictly speaking this is untrue. INTj cares more about "facts" than ENTj, but ESTj cares more about "facts" than ISTj. The phenomenon Joy means here is real enough though, and very important. (I take it that you mean the point that static facts are universally important whereas dynamic facts are fleeting and so less important. If not, please correct me.)

Well, I think we have to define the context in which I use the term "facts" in order to understand each other here.

You were close when you mentioned static and dynamic, but I don't know that I'd use the term "universally important". Ti "facts" are considered by the Ti type as universally important, in a way. This is because those facts are part of a model, a system of understanding. Other parts of the his/her Ti structure are built upon existing parts of that structure, and future parts may be built upon any information that's accepted into the structure. Because Ti types understand what they're perceiving (via Ne or Se) through that structure, it's important to them that the information contained in the structure is correct. If it is incorrect, their understanding of their perceptions will be flawed and in order to remedy the situation by removing the incorrect information, the Ti type will have to remove parts of the system that don't fit once the incorrect information is removed and either discard them or reconstruct the system and fit them back in. For this reason, new information is carefully considered before building on it or truly accepting it. Once it is accepted, however, it is considered a fact "until they have a good reason (that is, one that fits into their system, which again is just how they perceive and think about reality) to doubt it". After all of the careful consideration that the Ti type has put into evaluating the information, it seems only natural to consider it a fact. After all, it fits into the rest of their understanding of... well, everything.

I must note that Ti isn't just about creating one's own systems/models/structures, however. It's also about seeing, understanding, and utilizing existing systems, such as hierarchy (or any other Ti system). Keep in mind that while Alpha Ti receives much of it's information by seeing Ne (or possibilities), Beta Ti receives much of its information by seeing Se (or strength/power/other external qualities). That is why Beta Ti is very practical and realistic (and is often confused with Te).

[Joy]

Te/Fi types, however, only value Ti systems in as far as it is useful to Te or Fi.

The idea of holding something as a FACT just seems inefficient to a Te type. They don't understand the world through their own system/models/structured understanding, they just see activity. They utilize external "facts" but don't really consider them FACTS. They're willing to change, accept other information, and reject previous "facts" if it is useful to do so. However, they care a lot about the reliability of the source of the information because they don't care to try fitting information into some complex system before they can utilize it. The less likely it is that the source of this information is incorrect, the better. (This is where a lot of Te vs. Ti conflicts come from... the Ti type says that something is a FACT and the Te type says "what's your source" and doesn't care about the Ti type's complex system or careful consideration before accepting that information.)

Te is about activity, behavior, and what works. Contrary to popular belief, Te utilizes outside information (from a source that is most likely correct/reliable) not because that's what defines Te, but simply because Te isn't Ti.

[Smilingeyes]

Well, I think we have to define the context in which I use the term "facts" in order to understand each other here.

I hope you only say 'facts' when you refer to an extrovert function because otherwise there's a contradiction of terms. So when you say Ti facts I have to expect you mean whatever extrovert function the Ti-person is using to supply facts. That is, facts in relation to Ti.

You were close when you mentioned static and dynamic, but I don't know that I'd use the term "universally important". Ti "facts" are considered by the Ti type as universally important, in a way. This is because those facts are part of a model, a system of understanding. Other parts of the his/her Ti structure are built upon existing parts of that structure, and future parts may be built upon any information that's accepted into the structure.

Perfect.

Because Ti types understand what they're perceiving (via Ne or Se) through that structure, it's important to them that the information contained in the structure is correct. If it is incorrect, their understanding of their perceptions will be flawed and in order to remedy the situation by removing the incorrect information, the Ti type will have to remove parts of the system that don't fit once the incorrect information is removed and either discard them or reconstruct the system and fit them back in.

Very true for ti + ne types. Not so exactly true for ti + se types. They are able to use force where their model does not work. That is to push the cube into the round hole. They can be pretty good at that.

For this reason, new information is carefully considered before building on it or truly accepting it. Once it is accepted, however, it is considered a fact "until they have a good reason (that is, one that fits into their system, which again is just how they perceive and think about reality) to doubt it". After all of the careful consideration that the Ti type has put into evaluating the information, it seems only natural to consider it a fact. After all, it fits into the rest of their understanding of... well, everything.

Excellent!

I must note that Ti isn't just about creating one's own systems/models/structures, however. It's also about seeing, understanding, and utilizing existing systems, such as hierarchy (or any other Ti system). Keep in mind that while Alpha Ti receives much of it's information by seeing Ne (or possibilities), Beta Ti receives much of its information by seeing Se (or strength/power/other external qualities). That is why Beta Ti is very practical and realistic (and is often confused with Te).

Again, agreed. Though I have to remind others' reading this that people with Fi, Ni and Si are equally able to understand and utilize systems but they do so in characteristically different ways.

Now I'm going to take this opportunity to note for everyone's benefit that I think Joy is very experienced in socionics and has a better general understanding of types than most people on this forum, and that generally listening to her is usually a very good idea (except when she's joking or being political). And also that though I argue with her a lot, it's mostly for reasons that are generally nit-picking and way over the heads of most readers anyway so you might as well disregard what I say when I contradict her. Anyway I think the correct way to understand our communication is as competition of sorts since I feel no antagonism. Just so there's no misunderstandings.

[aestrivex]

ignoring the discussions: clubs are 100% useless in socionics, agreed.

[CuriousSoul]

Now as to quadra VALUES. . . If you suppose that quadra VALUES are an important part of the typing process...

If you believe that quadra values have at most a statistical linkage to the actual functions and deeper processes... Your basing all your typings on stuff you believe is weak evidence.
If you believe that quadra values have a definite and determinative linkage to the inner functions you are claiming that not only does our thought structure determine how we think but it determines the content of our thoughts as well.

FURTHERMORE if you then ALSO happen to think that type doesn't change during life you are claiming that people have 4 possible inborn value systems that do not change during lifetime. And then you're in deep trouble. I dare anyone to support that claim.

I make no comment on what I think is the proper way to use quadras.

I rather disagree with this.
The support I claim is simply that I tend to find the quadras emerge in real life.
People appear to prefer people from the same quadra.
Now how do I know the types?
Well VI is one argument, but of course it is all highly subjective anyway...

[Joy]

Well, I think we have to define the context in which I use the term "facts" in order to understand each other here.

I hope you only say 'facts' when you refer to an extrovert function because otherwise there's a contradiction of terms. So when you say Ti facts I have to expect you mean whatever extrovert function the Ti-person is using to supply facts. That is, facts in relation to Ti.

Hmm we're back to the definition of "facts". To me, "fact" can mean two different things:

1.) Information that is, to the best of an individual's knowledge/understanding, objective. This would often be the type of thing you'd read in an encyclopedia or some other similar source.
2.) Information that is considered irrefutable by an individual, something that makes so much sense to him/her that he/she cannot comprehend that it's not true. (And lesser versions of this extreme, the point being that the information is subjective.)

I don't consider either of those things to be irrefutable, and the word "fact" implies that something has been proven, so I dislike the word "fact" and generally try not to use it. If I do use the word "fact" (or FACT, in my Te description post), I'm usually referring to a belief by another individual, something that fits into the second description, and something which I may not necessarily believe to be true.

You were close when you mentioned static and dynamic, but I don't know that I'd use the term "universally important". Ti "facts" are considered by the Ti type as universally important, in a way. This is because those facts are part of a model, a system of understanding. Other parts of the his/her Ti structure are built upon existing parts of that structure, and future parts may be built upon any information that's accepted into the structure.

Perfect.

Because Ti types understand what they're perceiving (via Ne or Se) through that structure, it's important to them that the information contained in the structure is correct. If it is incorrect, their understanding of their perceptions will be flawed and in order to remedy the situation by removing the incorrect information, the Ti type will have to remove parts of the system that don't fit once the incorrect information is removed and either discard them or reconstruct the system and fit them back in.

Very true for ti + ne types. Not so exactly true for ti + se types. They are able to use force where their model does not work. That is to push the cube into the round hole. They can be pretty good at that.

The way I see it, Se + Ti types don't necessarily make information fit through force... more that they assert that something fits with Se. Ne + Ti types do something similar with Ne, except they have a different style of bullshit. Their assertions are more idealistic or scientific and less authoritative or forceful.

For this reason, new information is carefully considered before building on it or truly accepting it. Once it is accepted, however, it is considered a fact "until they have a good reason (that is, one that fits into their system, which again is just how they perceive and think about reality) to doubt it". After all of the careful consideration that the Ti type has put into evaluating the information, it seems only natural to consider it a fact. After all, it fits into the rest of their understanding of... well, everything.

Excellent!

I must note that Ti isn't just about creating one's own systems/models/structures, however. It's also about seeing, understanding, and utilizing existing systems, such as hierarchy (or any other Ti system). Keep in mind that while Alpha Ti receives much of it's information by seeing Ne (or possibilities), Beta Ti receives much of its information by seeing Se (or strength/power/other external qualities). That is why Beta Ti is very practical and realistic (and is often confused with Te).

Again, agreed. Though I have to remind others' reading this that people with Fi, Ni and Si are equally able to understand and utilize systems but they do so in characteristically different ways.

While I agree that Fi has similar systems (Fi systems are ethical, Ti systems are logical), I don't see Ni or Si as having systems. The word "system" is too static... it implies a complex arrangement of relationships between static things/items/ideas/whatever.

Ni and Si are about cause and effect relationships. They're dynamic. There are no models or structures in Ni/Si.

Now I'm going to take this opportunity to note for everyone's benefit that I think Joy is very experienced in socionics and has a better general understanding of types than most people on this forum, and that generally listening to her is usually a very good idea (except when she's joking or being political). And also that though I argue with her a lot, it's mostly for reasons that are generally nit-picking and way over the heads of most readers anyway so you might as well disregard what I say when I contradict her. Anyway I think the correct way to understand our communication is as competition of sorts since I feel no antagonism. Just so there's no misunderstandings.

lol thanks

I don't think there's any antagonism in our interactions either. We're just challenging each other and each other's ideas because there are differences in our understandings of Socionics.

[Minde]

You two (Joy and Smilex) make me happy.

See how being polite and non-antagonistic facilitates the exchange of information and ideas? There's actual dialogue here, of the beneficial and helpful kind.

This is good and what I've been wanting.


/personal interjection

[Joy]

Ti types DO care about "facts", btw. Probably more so than Te types. They fit information into their systems, and then that information becomes a "fact" to them until they have a good reason (that is, one that fits into their system, which again is just how they perceive and think about reality) to doubt it.

i could correct you AS I SEE IT and say Ti build systems by using bits of mental abstractions that you confuse with facts.

I don't really consider anything to be a fact. Facts do exist, but there's no way for humans to truly KNOW what is and what is not a fact. That's my abstract view on it, anyways. In practice though, I like to use the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt", reasonable being the keyword.

the systems get changed if their testing against reality, the process of which is Te, does not satisfy particular criteria (not sure which one here Ti or Te).

I don't know that I'd say the process of testing Ti systems against reality is Te. Ti types gather information primarily with their other ego function, Ne or Se, and sometimes that information conflicts with existing information in their system. That's one way in which it's "tested". Another way is just through considering whether or not it truly fits into the system... the system tests itself because other information in the system has already been carefully considered and weighed against other information in the system.

Let's not forget that all of the IM Elements are "reality". They're aspects of reality.